Considering a Loan Cure Period to Avoid Participant Loan Defaults

Allowing a cure period for plan loans may help preserve participants’ retirement savings and meet plan sponsors’ fiduciary responsibilities.

Defined contribution (DC) plan participant loan defaults can be a big setback to retirement savings.

A Deloitte analysis found a typical defaulting borrower could lose $300,000 in retirement savings over his career. This includes taxes, early withdrawal penalties, lost earnings and, for terminated or retired participants, any early cash-out of a defaulting participant’s full plan balance.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

For participants who terminate employment or retire, some plan sponsors have adopted the ability for participants to continue to make loan repayments after termination, and when loan repayments are payroll deducted, it is less likely active participants will default on loans. However, there are still situations in which active participants may default.

One solution plan sponsors can consider is allowing for a loan cure period. The IRS says in a recent Issue Snapshot that a plan sponsor may, but is not required to, allow a cure period during which a delinquent participant loan may be brought back into compliance without triggering a deemed distribution. If allowed, the cure period must be specifically provided for in the written plan document.

If this option is adopted, the maximum allowable cure period would extend to the last day of the calendar quarter following the calendar quarter in which the required installment payment was due. The plan sponsor may also adopt a shorter cure period, or none.

If a loan repayment is still late even after considering the cure period, the amount of the deemed distribution is equal to the entire outstanding balance of the loan (including any accrued interest) as of the last day of the cure period.

The IRS offers examples of how a loan cure period works. In the first, participant A is in Year 2 of the loan repayment schedule when she misses two payments (March and April). She then makes two timely payments (May and June) before catching up with a triple payment in July.

The two missed installment payments (March and April) have separate cure periods because they occur in separate calendar quarters (June 30 for the March payment and September 30 for the April payment). Each missed installment is cured by the timely installment payments made in May and June of Year 2, which are shifted to cover the missed installments.

By shifting the May and June installment payments to cover the March and April missed installments, the May and June installments are then considered missed. However, by making the triple installment payment in July, the May and June payments are timely cured.

In the IRS’ second example, Participant A is in Year 2 of the loan repayment schedule when she misses four payments (March, April, May and June). On July 3, she makes a double payment equal to the missed March and April installments. The make-up installment payment was received after the end of the cure period for the March installment. As a result, Participant A has a deemed distribution on June 30. The amount of the deemed distribution is the outstanding loan balance (including accrued interest) on June 30. However, because she made loan repayments after the deemed distribution occurred on June 30, the participant has an investment in the contract (tax basis) equal to the amount of the payment made on July 3.

The IRS offers another example in which the participant timely refinances her loan within the cure period, avoiding a deemed distribution.

Especially in this time, when the coronavirus pandemic may cause work interruptions, allowing a cure period for plan loans may help preserve participants’ retirement savings. The Department of Labor (DOL) has said it considers participants’ loans as plan investments, so plan sponsors should consider their fiduciary duties as they do with other plan investments.

Employers and Employees Benefit by Waiving Co-Pays for COVID-19 Testing

States and insurers have done so for fully insured plans, and self-insured employers should follow suit.

As COVID-19 continues to put workers at risk, the effort to stop—or slow down—the coronavirus is leading states, insurance providers and employers to waive health costs.

California, Colorado, Maryland, New York, Vermont and Washington have already directed insurance providers in their respective states to halt co-pays associated with coronavirus testing, and some have issued similar calls for treatment as well. Several private insurance companies in other areas of the United States have already ceased costs for testing, but not for treatment of the virus, says America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). It’s worth noting that the federal government currently has no authority over insurers; instead, it is up to the states to regulate providers.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

“As the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has reported, many states are encouraging their issuers to cover a variety of COVID-19 related services, including testing and treatment, without cost-sharing, while several states have announced that health plans in the state must cover the diagnostic testing of COVID-19 without cost-sharing and waive any prior authorization requirements for such testing,” says Kim Buckey, vice president of Client Services at DirectPath.  “Obviously that relieves a great deal of financial pressure on both employees and employers.”

While employees under fully insured plans will be able to get tested for free under these states and providers, millions of uninsured Americans and those covered by self-insured plans will still have to find ways to afford co-pay costs. Current regulation by most insurance providers and states allows for self-insured plans to opt out of the program, meaning these employers may not choose to cover co-payments.

Companies that typically self-insure will pay their employee’s medical bills directly and select their own benefits. While these plans will hire an insurer to manage the plan, these providers are not allowed to change benefits without the employer’s approval. Therefore, employers have full say when it comes to these plans.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 61% of American workers are currently covered under self-insured plans. Unless an employer decides to independently cover co-pays for testing and/or treatment, these workers are left to foot the bill themselves, or worse, forgo testing and treatment. To avoid these situations, Julie Stone, managing director of the Health & Benefits team at Willis Towers Watson, urges employers to waive the costs or divert from opting out of an insurance provider’s program. “There is only an upside when it comes to an employer waiving costs and co-pays. The best thing from a public health and employer perspective is to have the access to testing,” she says.

For employers worried about paying more, Stone encourages plan sponsors to look at the situation as a short-term cost for a long-term investment, even if it’s tough to do so. Employees who are sick can take time off and recover without worrying about payments, surprise bills or spreading the virus to coworkers. “While not opting out can increase their costs, the net return by early testing and having those who test positive out of the workforce could actually save them money,” she explains. “Rather than employees not getting tested and potentially spreading the virus to others.”

Buckey agrees, explaining how providing costs for testing can help stave off high-cost claims for health benefits in the long run if people get treated early. “As we know, most patients with COVID-19 experience minimal to moderate symptoms and can be treated at home; doing so frees up important hospital resources for the truly ill,” she explains. “Those who test positive and know they are at risk for complications, such as the elderly, immune-compromised, etc., can talk to their doctors or other medical professionals about getting treatment and whether they should be hospitalized.”

Employers with self-funded plans who plan on taking action can meet with their brokers, insurers and stop-loss carriers to plan for what they are willing to cover, with respect to out-of-network bills for treatment, Buckey adds. Additionally, she mentions that now is a good time to communicate with employees about their options and what the employer is doing for them.

“In the meantime, employers should consider adding telemedicine services, if they do not already offer them, and be communicating frequently and consistently about what employees should be doing to protect their health, what the employer is doing to support their health, what their plans do and do not cover, and what other programs may be in place to assist,” she says.

Looking forward, providing assistance during these stressful times can increase a worker’s financial—and overall—wellness. Employees can focus on their health instead of anxiety, thus leading them to be happier, healthier and even more productive workers.

“One of the things I’m seeing now is the importance of employers clearly communicating,” Stone concludes. “Employees need to understand what their employers are doing for them and knowing this will have a long-term impact on their employee reaction, and retention.”

«